So what do we have here..? "Liberalism causes terrorism": We have a liberal claiming that if someone blew a bunch of people up in his own town, he would pay no attention to the terrorists, but to the society he holds responsible for their terrorism. Thus signalling to the terrorists that they can blow up whoever they want, because: 1: It isn't their fault, and... 2: There will be no unpleasant consequences, for them.

It's no wonder I can't bear to spend any of my time either discussing or debating anything with leftists.

Good, at least Scourge is trying to identify the social aspect of it. Crow: just because you recongise the reason behind someone's actions doesn't mean you condone it. I'm sorry if it's not 'conservative' to look for social reasons behind crime: but there is a large penis one can place in their mouth if this is a problem for them.

However the above picture is too simplistic: and begs the question: from whence liberalism?

Also, too 'Hegelian' (not in method in ontology): Not rooted in material/economic factors enough (come on, nihilists, you can't get rid of that pesky marx!)

Still in this process the average human being has been 'liberated' from arbitrary forms of association and allegiance. They have gained 'equality' via the above process, or, recognition as individuals: thymos, and also material-prosperity to boot! Just because 'liberalism' (or more accurately, the historical process that produces liberalism) produces a few murderers here and there means zero. The overall direction is solid in that most people are satisfied (liberalism wouldn't stick if this were not the case, and nearly every culture on earth would not either be a) liberal or b) on it's way to liberalism (economic and social)).

You are walking against the tide if you think this is all going to 'wind back' any time soon. There is a direction to modern history: the above dialectic is driven by two deep facets of human nature: 1) desire, and 2) recognition/status. People have gained much, you would HAVE TO recognise on an objective analysis. They also have lost ('traditional' forms of association), but the question is: what is the balance between factors gained and factors lost: Do you really think the direction of history will change. From where will the new contradiction arise?

Environmentalism? Maybe - but I think we NEED a high level of technology to escape environmental problems, so the post-industrial society won't vanish: and if it doesn't vanish, neither will the forms of association it promotes over older forms vanish. This is the key point.

Religious fundamentalism? - Maybe. Fukuyama pronounced that history had ended in the 90's, and then 9/11 happened! But I don't think it's likely that this will spread enough to challenge the direction of history (to post-industrial liberal societies). As Islamic societies go through the above economic revolutions (the material engine of history - as they will - because it is driven by 1) human desire and 2) human recognition or thymos), they will, necessarily, go through the associated social revolutions too.

Liberalism, or a particular 'modern' pattern of how human beings associate into groups, is caused by a complex economic-historical process. This process is in turn driven by 2 deep parts of human nature. Liberalism is not something we can simply throw off via cultural-criticism. It's driven by something more real than ideas: a huge economic-historical process.

We can read as much Evola as we like, but those parts of 'human nature' he is (really) talking about: stoicism, asceticism, etc, mean shit to an aspiring young man with a hungry family. He (and more importantly, his fellow countrymen in the thid world) is/are going to engage him/themself(s) in the above economic-historical process in order to achieve 1) material prosperity 2) reconigition as an individual with rights and freedom of association. Evola was a wealthy baron who never had to work a day in his fucking life.

And to bring it back to the subject of this thread: Liberalism does cause terrorism sure, but in 0.0000000000000001 per cent of the population. All stages in the process of history produce friction: the point is where the overall direction is headed, and whether liberalism will indeed represent the 'end of history' where no new fundamental contradictions will arise that will challenge the system.

What you call logic is no such thing. And even if it was, so what? Logic is for computers. Logic is incapable of thought, only binary processing. Reason is different, and requires the ability to think. I use neither, if I can avoid it, because I have discovered them to be pedestrian. That is why I can't be bothered conversing with you very often, let alone caring about killing you. You do nobody any favors here, you know, now that your two main fans have been canned. So settle down.

What you call logic is no such thing. And even if it was, so what? Logic is for computers. Logic is incapable of thought, only binary processing. Reason is different, and requires the ability to think. I use neither, if I can avoid it, because I have discovered them to be pedestrian. That is why I can't be bothered conversing with you very often, let alone caring about killing you. You do nobody any favors here, you know, now that your two main fans have been canned. So settle down.

I think I understand where you're coming from, Transcix. Daily life in Boston ground to a halt after a terror spree that killed a mere 4 people (though over 100 were injured). People stayed home from work and school, all events were cancelled. London during the Blitz was probably more lively. Some might say this telegraphs weakness to our enemies by showing them how easy it is to disrupt our society. They will also point to the prevalence of inner-city gun crime and ask why we don't similarly react whenever an innocent African-American gets caught in gang crossfire. Perhaps there is some truth to these points... mainly the first one. But ultimately, I think Boston reacted appropriately, and here's why:

1. All American were potentially a target, not just members of gang XYZ.2. It was unknown if the suspects were working with others or if more attacks were planned.3. The brothers were armed with improvised bombs and grenades, making them significantly more dangerous.

It's easy to be a grandstanding foolosopher when the most traumatic thing to ever happen in you're life is the death of your 95-year-old grandma from natural causes. Try watching you're loved ones die right before your eyes and see if you feel the same way.

Artificial. Does that suggest anything to you? That's the whole nature of the beast we face. Leftism is artificial and all its adherents, too. I am not artificial. I become annoyed at artificials holding forth about their supposed superiority. There is nothing superior about anything artificial. Because it is artificial. And that, in a nutshell, is beyond the capability of anything artificial, to understand.

This whole site, as I see it, is about witless beings seeking to become uber-men. Is that the case? Or is it really about becoming artificial copies of uber-men?

Logged

Phoenix

Hmmmm, Tralfamadorian, I certainly don't mean to criticize the police response or question the need for it. Did I ever say otherwise?

I suppose this speaks exactly to my point. Can the media and the public not grasp simultaneously that a person can be a victim as well as at fault? When anyone hints at having sympathy for the bombers they're blasted. Love thy enemy.

Did I bring a gun to a knife fight, did I use a hammer in this thread when I should have used a scalpel? I don't know, but I can't dance around the issues..

It's all in good fun though, after all, love thy enemy surely extends to discussion forums?!

Phoenix

Why do you say that, crow? I do not mean to imply that this love should interfere with combating one's enemy, that would be tactically unsound. It's more of a selfish thing really, more about how the human condition works, in the sense that hate is unhealthy and doesn't lead to happiness. Why should I give my enemy the power to make me angry? Why should I allow these bombers to make me hate?

Can one be simply indifferent? I've tried it, and I often am indifferent, relatively speaking though, in the thick of things, in the heat of the moment. At the end of the day, when I'm honest with myself.. I don't know. It's a big question that I myself still ask. Is neutrality feasible or does it harm one's being?

Neutrality is all. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. You ever see that movie First Knight? How could Lancelot be so good? Somebody thought to ask him... "You have to not care if you live or die".

There is limitless power in that.

I don't hate those murdering scum. I don't hate you. I don't hate, period. I do get very, very angry, when anger serves. I decide. I act. I retire when the deed is done. I sleep.